christopher hitchens, tony blair on religion

Update Monday 29 November 2010

I wasn't sure whether to just update my original post on the Christopher Hitchens, Tony Blair debate on religion this weekend or make a separate post so I've done both.

First up Deano who's a frequent and articulate poster to the Bad Science forums where I picked up on this story commented on my post after I did a quick blogpimp on the thread - the forums are linked halfway down the right, the thread in question is in the Meaningless Banter forum and is called 'Christopher Hitchens vs Blair on religion'. Have a read, there are some really interesting contributions that make my efforts look a bit poor.

Anyway Deano's comment was,

'You say there are other reasons than religion why people go to war. This is no doubt true, but doesn't undermine Hitchen's point that religion provides another and unnecessary reason. The promise of eternal life, and demonisation of your enemies makes 'holy war' especially toxic.

On the charity point - Blair claimed the campaign for debt relief for Africa was something churches should be given credit for. That conveniently ignores the fact that the campaign was secular in nature, and was supported and led by people of no faith, as well as the religious. The fact that the capitalists that happily lent money to African dictators in the first place no doubt included observant Christians and Jews is also conveniently overlooked.'

These are very good points which I felt should be reflected in the original post.

It also occurred to me that I significantly simplified and crudened the positions of both Hitchens and Blair. More so in the case of Hitchens who appeared to have more arguments at his disposal than Blair.

To mention just a few Hitchens spoke about the circumcision [genital mutilation] of children, the repression of women, the use of religious texts to justify territorial claims, and the support of churches for terrible crimes as in Rwanda.

I'd also like to mention Clifford Longley's conribution to the debate on Radio 4's Thought for the Day this morning who in his discussion of the debate made the unpleasant suggestion that the role of religion is not to make people better but to save souls. His words, 'Christianity doesn't exist to make the world a better place. It exists to make men and women righteous in the sight of God, in other words to get souls into heaven.' See here for the full transcript if you have the stomach for it.

If this really is the view of the majority of the believers of the majority of religions then it's no wonder they feel that non-believers and other religions pose an existential threat.

It strikes me as a position which removes morality from religion altogether and only bolsters Hitchens' argument that religion justifies the most monstrous actions.

If this is not clear enough Longley cited Cardinal Newman in his support with the famous and revolting statement that it would be better:

for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of
starvation in extreme agony, than that one soul should tell one wilful untruth,
or steal one poor farthing without excuse.

The quote was also used by Hitchens in his opening to show the twisted mentality of religious thought.

I don't know about you but I find Newman's words pretty disgusting. Longley uses the quote to justify his claim that Newman would have voted against the motion that religion is a force for good in the world. I can see the logic of this but the morality of it eludes me. But then I guess that was Longley's point.

Original post

Picked up on this via the Bad Science forums.

Early morning UK time Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair debated the motion 'Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world' in Toronto.

The New Statesman has a full transcript which appears to be by voice recognition software. It's a long article so probably best to tackle it when you know you have time.

Unsurprisingly I'm more convinced by Hitchens' arguments against the motion but I have problems with the positions of both speakers.

Although it's not the whole of his argument Hitchens does make use of the argument that war and all manner of atrocities are frequently justified on religious grounds. This is not an argument I find persuasive. There are far more compelling reasons why people go to war than 'god made me do it'. Territorial expansion, revenge, punishment, economic pressures, population pressures, resources. But Hitchens does acknowledge that universal secularism wouldn't stop people doing bad things.

Blair on the other hand argues that religion can lead to charitable works and helping one's neighbour. Again I'd argue that this is a product of being human, it's how we are. Blair claims that this is not from fear of god, or from a selfish desire for salvation, but because it is a religious value.

This brings me to one of two quotes from Hitchens that particularly stand out for me. He deals with this question of charity and contrasts those who carry out good works because they care for others, and those who carry out good works because they care for others AND take their religious tract with them

... if the promise of religion had been true... if good works should be enough, and those who give charity should be honoured, those who receive it should be grateful, two rather revolting ideas in one, I have to say, there would be no need for human, social and political action, we could rely on being innately good, which we know we can't rely upon, and I never suggested we could or should.

In the second quote from the very end of the debate he deals with the idea that there is 'something beyond the material, or if not beyond it, not entirely consistent materially with it'. Referring to the beauty of Athens despite the ugly reality of ancient life there he says,

What remains is the fantastic beauty ... the question is how to keep what is of value of this sort in art in our own emotions ... I will go as far as the ecstatic, and to distinguish it precisely from superstition and the supernatural which are designed to make us fearful and afraid and servile.

For me this is important and begins to address a theological argument that religion is faith and to look for reasons is somehow to miss the point. The difference between that theological argument and Hitchens' argument for me is this: the numinous or transcendent as Hitchens also calls it, the fantastic beauty, the ecstasy in the art is a human trait. It is something we experience individually but which we all recognise. Crucially it doesn't demand anything of us. We experience it, enjoy it, and if we are artists perhaps try to find some way to share it. The religious argument says 'this comes from god, you should be thankful for it and give yourself over to worship.'

Religion for me is like a parasite that infects anything good. It claims ownership and demands that you be thankful. Which brings us right back to that first quote from Christopher Hitchens. Specifically, 'those who give charity should be honoured, those who receive it should be grateful, two rather revolting ideas in one'.

This is why I think Hitchens takes the debate. But then I would say that.